The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] "Reasons" for war...

Sure ain't rosy in the garden. But, please, mind them (George W?) Bush(es)!!

>From: tupac shakur <>
>Subject: [casi] "Reasons" for war...
>Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:17:40 -0800 (PST)
>[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]
>   I made the mistake of turning on the local talk-radio station. I knew
>better but I was out doing errands and just turned on the car radio without
>thinking about it. Instantly, my sense were assailed by a non-stop diatribe
>of why "we" (meaning our kids but not those of the radio personality in
>question) had to invade Iraq. I kept hearing jingoisms about "time running
>out" and mentioning that the attack "should" start as soon as the UN
>inspectors turn in their report on the 27th, as if it is a foregone
>conclusion that the UN inspectors will submit a memo saying, "Go ahead and
>nuke them, we think they are scum!"
>   Well, I changed the car radio buttons to point to some mellow music
>stations and won't tune back to Clear Channel ever again. But I thin it is
>time to take a close look at the supposed case for war, in order to reply
>to the pro-war salesmen, should they ever get their fingers unplugged from
>their ears, or the craniums dislodged from their sphincters.
>Is there a case for war?
>1. Has Iraq invaded the US?
>A: No.
>2. Okay, who HAS Iraq invaded?
>A: Nobody for the last 10 years.
>3. Does Iraq have Weapons of Mass Destruction?
>A: Not that the UN inspectors have found, and Blix just announced he
>doesn't think there are any. Bush keeps screaming "Iraq isn't disarming" to
>which Iraq replies, "We don't have anything to disarm WITH!"
>4. What about those chemical weapon warheads?
>A: What was found were empty warheads, that could be used for chemical
>weapons, but tests show they have never had those chemicals in them. This
>means those warheads, 16 in all, are as dangerous as the empty warheads
>military buffs buy at the surplus store to decorate their dens with. Iraq
>says the warheads were listed in their declaration. Bush says they were
>not. Blix says that the complete Iraqi declaration hasn't been translated
>5. What about the documents which prove interest in nuclear physics?
>A: These appear to have been papers written by college students in a quest
>not for weapons, but for an advanced college degree. Iraq has a justifiable
>and legal interest in nuclear power for electrical generation, except that
>Israel bombed their reactor.
>6. What would happen if Iraq obtained weapons of mass destruction?
>A: Nothing. Iraq can have all the weapons of mass destruction it wants. It
>just can't use them. Your parents and grandparents got stuck with a $5
>trillion bill to create a US nuclear deterrent capability. The instant Iraq
>uses a weapon of mass destruction on the US or its allies, the US nuclear
>force will melt Iraq down into a green glass parking lot. Saddam is many
>bad things but he is not stupid. He knows he cannot use a weapon of mass
>destruction. Maybe he can put them on display in a museum.
>7. But Iraq is shooting at our planes!
>A: Iraq, like any other nation, has a right to protect itself from
>invasion. The "no-fly" zones are illegal. The UN did not approve them.
>Every time a US plane flies into Iraq it is committing a technical act of
>war by invading their air space without permission. Were another nation to
>fly their aircraft into US air space without permission, the US would shoot
>that aircraft down and nobody would find that response unusual.
>8. But what about the "Secret Intelligence" the US says proves Iraq has
>weapons of mass destruction?
>A: The UN inspectors just finished checking the CIA's list of "sites of
>concern" and found nothing at all.
>9. Rumsfeld says that not finding any weapons proves Iraq is hiding them.
>A: Not finding any weapons proves that no weapons were found. If Rumsfeld
>wants to insist weapons are there in Iraq, the burden of proof is on him to
>show the world, and that proof had better be able to withstand close
>10. But didn't Saddam gas his own people?
>A: There doesn't seem to be any solid evidence that he did so. However, the
>United States, having gassed a church full of women and children in Waco
>with a poison gas that's illegal to use in warfare does not have the moral
>high ground to pass judgment on other nations.
>11. Isn't Iraq in defiance of UN Resolutions?
>A: It is only if it is PROVEN that Iraq has illegal weapons of mass
>12. Shouldn't we invade Iraq if it is proven to be in defiance of UN
>A: A lot of nations are in defiance of UN Resolutions. The record holder is
>Israel. One cannot argue for invasion of Iraq solely on the grounds of
>defying the UN without also justifying invasion of Israel for the exact
>same reason.
>13. If the US nuclear deterrent can keep Saddam from using any weapons of
>mass destruction he has, then just why is the US so eager to actually
>invade Iraq?
>A: Oil. The US Government is broke; so deep in debt that all the income tax
>paid by all the citizens cannot keep up with the interest payments. The
>American people are burdened by high taxation, most of which is hidden in
>excises, fees, tariffs, etc. and passed onto the citizen hidden in the
>price of consumer goods. The government has had to recently borrow more
>money just to make the payments on the money it already owes, and borrows
>so much money that it drives up interest rates, which means YOU pay more
>for the money you need to borrow as a result. All businesses take that
>increase interest, plus the taxes and fees they pay and pass them onto you
>in the final retail price. You would be amazed just how much of the
>purchase price of anything you buy eventually tracks back to government.
>Because of high taxes and regulatory compliance, manufacturing started to
>leave this nation about 20 years ago. The government tried to conceal it
>with the "service economy", a silly notion that you can make a nation
>prosperous by doing each other's laundry. While the exchange of service
>fees back and forth among the citizens resulted in more opportunities for
>taxes to be assessed, very new money was coming into the nation because the
>nation wasn't making as many products to sell outside the nation. Over
>time, money shifted from the population into the government, which meant
>cash flow to tax declined even more.
>Because products we used to make and sell are now purchased from outside
>the nation, we have a trade deficit growing by a billion and a half dollars
>a day.  That kind of deficit makes a devaluation of the dollar inevitable.
>This will cause the debt problem to increase, since the debt is payable in
>the currency of the nation in which the lender does business in. As the
>dollar drops in value, it will take MORE dollars to pay off the same debt.
>Finally, there is the stock market. The Plunge Protection Team used market
>tricks to run the indicator numbers up for political gain during the 90s.
>But that did not actually signal a healthy stock market, it actually
>signaled a dangerously over-valued market, worse than the market in the
>weeks leading up to 1929. Toss in scandals like Enron, and the US stock
>market has a severe credibility problem.
>The US Government cannot wave a magic wand and make the stock market a good
>investment overnight. Likewise, it took 20 years for manufacturing to be
>driven out of this nation and will take 20 years to build back up. The only
>possible way for the US Government to avoid defaulting on the debt when the
>dollar crashes (which it will do as soon as the real estate bubble bursts)
>is to reverse the trade deficit, and the only way to do that is to turn
>Mideast oil from an imported product to an exported one.
>And THAT is the reason for the push to war.
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
>Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
>To unsubscribe, visit
>To contact the list manager, email
>All postings are archived on CASI's website:

Worried what your kids see online? Protect them better with MSN 8

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]